A call for open primaries

With public disgust with Congress at an all-time high, you’d think people would be paying attention to Tuesday’s election for the next rep from the Mass. 5th District, Ed Markey’s old seat. But election official see no excitement: Framingham Town Clerk Valerie Mulvey is worried turnout may not hit double-figures.

Massachusetts is a one-party state. The Democratic Party uses its power to keep it that way and the Republican Party can’t do anything about it.

As a result, voters are deprived of real choices and competitive races. Democrats don’t challenge other Democrats unless there’s an open seat. When there is a fight for the Democratic nomination, Republicans and independents are left out of the election that counts, and moderate Democrats are at a disadvantage in campaigns aimed at activists. Most of the time, Republicans don’t stand a chance in the general election, which discourages good candidates from making the attempt.

Some of us have grown old waiting for the Massachusetts Republican Party to develop into a competitive force. I submit that since it’s proving so hard to create a real two-party system in Massachusetts, maybe it makes sense to de-emphasize parties altogether.

Massachusetts should adopt an open primary system: Put all candidates from both parties on the primary ballot and let everyone vote. The top two vote-getters compete in the general election. California has adopted this reform, in part to remove the bias toward extremists fostered by party primaries. I think it might also take a little away from the advantage incumbents have, encourage more candidates to run and make general elections more meaningful.

The 5th District is a great example. In 1976 and in 3013, the seat opened up, attracting a crowd of Democrats. Markey won with 23 percent of the vote, and never faced a serious challenge in the next 37 years. Katherine won in a crowded field with 32 percent of the vote and if she doesn’t handily roll over Frank Addivinola Tuesday I’ll eat my hat.

Now, look at raw numbers: Clark won her primary with almost 22,000 votes – four times the 4,759 votes Addivinola tallied in the GOP primary: Five candidates in the Democratic primary won more votes than Addivinola: Clark; Peter Koutoujian, 15,290; Carl Sciortino, 11, 185; Will Brownsberger, 10,142; and Karen Spilka, 9,057.

Under an open primary system, Koutoujian would likely be facing off against Clark in Tuesday’s election – and people would be paying attention.

California adopted it by referendum after a push by Arnold. It went into effect last year, along with independent redistricting. In some districts, two Democrats ended up running in the general election, in some districts two Republicans. The changes weren’t dramatic, but it may be one reason the current California legislature is being called the most productive in a long time.

rick is blaming a tumor for growing. the problem isn’t open primaries–the problem is the monopoly on power by parties, which rick pretty much recognizes. the first step is to break up these parties, and the second and most important step is to stop gerrymandering the districts in ways which make fair elections impossible. And then we need the federal prosecutor who really wants to dig in to the Warren/Brown election debacle, an election day which would make a third-world dictator blush. Open primaries don’t work until after chemotherapy kills the tumor.

I offer a modest (though unlikely to ever happen unless some major power forces the issue) reform to reduce the power of political parties in Massachusetts. Your response is parties should be “broken up” – are we banning political parties now?

I’m all for independent redistricting, but you’d have a hard time creating a Republican-friendly district without gerrymandering. Besides, independent redistricting should be political neutral, giving advantage to neither party. I don’t see redistricting doing anything to, for instance, make it easier to challenge a long-standing incumbent, while open primaries would.

I’ll be taking my mother-in-law out to vote tomorrow, so that will add to Mulvey’s turnout (and since she reflexively votes for anyone with a “R” next to their name, Addivinola will get at least 1 vote in her precinct – unless I can convince her not to vote for someone who lives outside of the district).

But his candidacy is and has been a long shot, and the campaigns have been quiet. I’ll bet that many aren’t even aware of the voting tomorrow and turnout will be embarrassingly low. I’m not convinced an open primary would help, but it can’t make things worse.

Rob, since you tossed this out here, what exactly is the “Warren/Brown election debacle, an election day which would make a third-world dictator blush.”? Do you have any data to support your accusation, or are you just still upset that your prediction was so far off?

Comments are closed.

About this blog:

Holmes & Co. is a Blog for Independent Minds, a place for a free-flowing discussion of politics, policy, news and opinion.

This blog is the online cousin of the Opinion section of the MetroWest Daily News. As such, our focus starts in the MetroWest/495 area and spreads from there to include Massachusetts, the nation and the world. You'll also find here lots of cross-referencing to columns and editorials in the MetroWest Daily News.

The blog presents an opportunity for readers to comment directly and immediately on pieces that appear on the print pages.